[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19233-19235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            AMERICAN ECONOMY

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it isn't often that a Senator from New 
Mexico and a Republican quotes an editorial by the Washington Post 
regarding economics and economic activity and America's economic 
future. This morning I caught an editorial in that newspaper which I 
have here behind me. It is from Saturday, October 5. It is styled 
``Negative Al Gore.''
  I didn't put it up here to be negative to Al Gore. I put it up here 
because the

[[Page 19234]]

editors of this newspaper have come to the conclusion, and have come to 
it rather firmly, that the President of the United States, George Bush, 
is not responsible for the current state of the American economy, nor 
did he do anything to cause the recession--how mild it was, how deep it 
was, how long it has lasted. He didn't cause it.
  I would like to start first with a statement which I will print in 
the Record which has gotten a lot of notoriety since I issued it and 
put it in the Record some days ago. It is a statement by Joseph 
Stiglitz, chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. 
I don't think we can quote it enough, as those on the other side think 
they are going to convince the American people, who are already rather 
doubtful, that they are going to convince them that President George 
Bush is responsible for this slow economy.
  This is a man, Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, who speaks for the Democrats, if 
he speaks for either party. He worked for President Clinton. He 
answered the question: When did the downturn start? I quote:

       [T]he economy was slipping into recession even before Bush 
     took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking 
     America began much earlier [than that.]

  We ought to be able to carry one of these around for the next 4 or 5 
weeks, just as our friend Senator Byrd carries the Constitution. Every 
time we hear a Democrat, wearing his partisan clothes, get up and say 
President Bush did this, we will refer him to one of the best 
economists that ever served America, served the previous President on 
his Council of Economic Advisors, and later on was a member of the 
Federal Reserve with the distinguished President we have there now, and 
he wrote this as a part of a dissertation with reference to the 
American economy.
  Along comes the Washington Post a few weeks later, Saturday, October 
5. Let me just read the yellow print and you can all be looking at the 
rest of it:

       But President Bush's main economic policy--the large tax 
     cut of last year--was not responsible for any of the current 
     damage. Indeed, given the twin shocks of 9/11 and the post-
     Enron stock market decline, the short-term stimulus created 
     by the tax cuts has turned out to be fortuitously well timed.

  You might recall, on a number of occasions, Senators who were putting 
forth the President's tax policy--I think the occupant of the Chair 
might have even supported that tax policy--would get up and say: It 
just might be the right time. We might be doing something right for a 
change, where we are getting a tax cut to come in just at the time that 
the American economy starts to stutter, starts to stammer around. And 
for once we might be on time, I said, in proposing it and getting the 
reconciliation instruction through here.
  I said, in addition, spending additional resources rather than 
tightening the budget would be in order also. Sure enough, the tax cuts 
were supplemented by an increase in expenditures. And, guess what. The 
Federal Reserve Chairman lowered the interest rates, and we had the 
threefold attack which normally works in terms of the American economy.
  We seldom do it right and punctual enough, but we did. So the 
American economy is stuttering for some other reason. It may very well 
be that we had such an extensive balloon-type economy when the stock 
market was driving almost everything to outlandish prices coming on to 
the market that maybe when those start to fall, it takes a little bit 
longer for things to catch on and push that back up the ladder because 
so much is falling down on us. Some say $11 trillion is the amount--
trillion--of diminution in value. I put ``value'' in quotes as I say it 
because I am not sure what that value meant. I am not sure that was 
value like you had dollar bills, but I am not sure what it was. People 
are having difficulty saying how much of that was nothing more than the 
hot air of the stock market. I don't know the answer to that. I haven't 
studied that.
  I would like very much to say to the editors of the Washington Post, 
I have some additional comments on the editorial that they have 
written. Obviously, I have taken parts of it and put it in my 
statement, obviously giving the Washington Post credit wherever I 
thought it was right, that that language was consistent with what I am 
talking about.
  The lead editorial on Saturday, titled ``Negative Al Gore,'' 
seriously questions the Senate leader's attack on President Bush. Let 
me highlight once more a couple of items:

       But President Bush's main economic policy--the large tax 
     cut of last year--was not responsible for any of the current 
     damage.

  That is not the Senate Republican Policy Committee saying that. That 
is the Washington Post.
  Another quote:

       Given the twin shocks--

  I have read that to you. It ends with:

     . . . fortuitously well timed.

  That is again not mine, not the Republican Senatorial Committee. That 
is the Washington Post's summary of how their editors see things in 
terms of the stock market and other things related to the American 
economy.
  Another quote:

       But to blame the weak American economy on Mr. Bush is 
     nonsense.

  That is the editorial of the Washington Post I am showing you here. 
Anyone who doesn't want to listen can read this and see what the 
Washington Post says. Let me proceed. I think the writers of the 
editorial have it just about right. The economic blame and the blame 
game that Leader Daschle and former Vice President Gore have launched 
is, for certain, wrong. There is little truth to it, and there is 
little economic veracity attendant. It is not accepted as being 
realistic by those in the highest echelons of economic terms and 
assessments in America.
  From the long-term economic history, we know a speculative boom, once 
started, cannot end without some disruption. I believe the American 
public understands this, and understands that to blame the current weak 
economy on President George Bush is nonsense.
  Having said that, I know we are engaged today, and for the next few 
days, in a serious discussion. Some would like to put the economy back 
front and center, and some think that would not be right. I believe we 
should proceed with dispatch to give the President the authority, if 
necessary, to see to it Saddam Hussein does not use weapons of mass 
destruction, and to use force, if he has to do that. I will speak in 
more detail and in more depth on that subject later on.
  I think we are capable of discussing two major issues at the same 
time and getting them both right. We surely can discuss this issue the 
writers in the Washington Post editorial bring to our attention. I, for 
one, am not fearful of standing up and discussing that issue with 
anybody, any color of politics, any party that wants to talk about 
President Bush and the relevancy of his actions to the current status 
of the American economy.
  I believe almost everything that was done--the lowering of the 
interest rates, extra expenditures that were put on rather than keeping 
the strings tightened around the budget and, obviously, a tax cut that 
came in just as the recession started to occur--I think we can discuss 
those and we can ask anyone around, what would you have done? They 
would come up with three of them, or two out of the three. When a 
President gets that done and he is starting his first term, and he has 
one body that is not of his party, it seems he deserves some very 
significant accolades. It is not every President who would have gotten 
that done.
  I believe we all looked for the right way to do it and the right 
things to do--what we did in urging a tax cut, urging the Fed to lower 
interest rates, and making the strings a little bit looser instead of 
tighter so we can spend more money. Some other reason is causing the 
slowdown, but it is not President Bush and his policies. It is not what 
the Senate voted in when we were in the majority and carrying it out 
under the majority of the Democrats, who have the body by one vote. We 
must remember one of our Members became an Independent and now votes 
with the other side.
  Whoever would like to discuss the American economy, I am willing. I

[[Page 19235]]

have a lot of other Senators who are willing. We will be here whenever 
you care to speak about it, and we might be here even when you don't 
care about speaking about it. We may speak to it ourselves.

                          ____________________